Jump to content
ShamrockOneFive

Tempest Mark V research

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

Note that the author states that 150 grade Octane fuel and 416 mph ASI at sea level gave Tempest pilots the edge and confident advantage in the hard-fighting winter of 1944.

 

He might be quoting testing figures. It's no operational confirmation. It would still be nice to have in game, though 11lb are more important imho.

 

(430 mph for the Bf109G-6 is off.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

He might be quoting testing figures. It's no operational confirmation. It would still be nice to have in game, though 11lb are more important imho.

 

(430 mph for the Bf109G-6 is off.)

I might have agreed with you if he had not clearly stated that this performance edge and resulting confidence was part of the hard fighting of winter 1944.  Also, I would not expect the Axis aircraft figures to be exact as we are possibly talking captured aircraft and second hand information on Axis aircraft and he does not indicate that he actually flew the Axis aircraft.  However, his credentials for giving us details on the Tempest V are impeccable.  He is not just any pilot.  The link below gives an idea of his credentials.  I would not expect this book to provide definitive details regarding Axis aircraft and would expect such details to be open to correction, but I would expect to be on very solid ground regarding details in this book regarding the Tempest V.  It is the Tempest V that the author is an expert and an authority on, not Axis aircraft. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Beamont

Edited by 56RAF_Talisman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-thinking about it, if the author is talking about winter conditions, 416 mph at Sea level with high boost doesn't sound that off..

 

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

Re-thinking about it, if the author is talking about winter conditions, 416 mph at Sea level with high boost doesn't sound that off..

 

 

True but bear in mind LW aircraft also obey the laws of thermodynamics and would get a similar boost.  I tested various aircraft in sim and get 10 - 40 kph extra than during autumn/spring.

 

K4 with DC engine did 653kph (406 mph) at SL on winter map.

A8 did 606kph on winter map

D9 did 614kph (not as big an increase).

Edited by ICDP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

Re-thinking about it, if the author is talking about winter conditions, 416 mph at Sea level with high boost doesn't sound that off..

 

Beamont got 415mph IAS  while chasing V1s, so a summer map.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As said elsewhere, it's IAS. At 400 the Tempest manual gives a 22mph position error correction. Trend: Increasing as speed goes up. So 416 IAS is 394 TAS at most, and that's perfectly plausible.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2018 at 12:34 PM, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

That was actually a mix-up of miscommunications by the third party artist who created the Tempest (it was a fan project for him) and Maddox Games implementation. It had mostly to do with the height at which the pilot sat in the cockpit. This is from before the days of the 6DOF cockpits.

 

I suspect that 1CGS won't make the mistake and we're already able to adjust our viewpoint in this sim without trouble anyways.

@ShamrockOneFiveI would be interested in your thoughts about the rear view from IL2 Bodenplatte's Tempest V,  now that the patch is out.....I am pretty surprised at the lack of vision out the back and am wondering if its something wrong with my setup given your comment about adjusting our viewpoint. 

Is the game view fairly accurate to what the Tempest was like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dallas88B said:

@ShamrockOneFiveI would be interested in your thoughts about the rear view from IL2 Bodenplatte's Tempest V,  now that the patch is out.....I am pretty surprised at the lack of vision out the back and am wondering if its something wrong with my setup given your comment about adjusting our viewpoint. 

Is the game view fairly accurate to what the Tempest was like?

 

The in-game model is as accurate as you are ever going to find, so I'd check your camera settings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anyone is reading this... I am using Opentrack and the Delan Clip for head tracking. I made some setting changes to Relative Translation and Neck displacement. Now can 'look over my shoulder" around the edge of the shield (located behind the pilots head) and down past the tail on both starboard and port. Thanks to @BlackHellHound1 for the excellent thread A complete guide to set up Head-tracking (Opentrack) here 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dallas88B said:

@ShamrockOneFiveI would be interested in your thoughts about the rear view from IL2 Bodenplatte's Tempest V,  now that the patch is out.....I am pretty surprised at the lack of vision out the back and am wondering if its something wrong with my setup given your comment about adjusting our viewpoint. 

Is the game view fairly accurate to what the Tempest was like?

 

I've been too busy blasting things on infront and sailing past at 350mph to look behind me 😄

 

Jokes aside, my impression is positive. The headrest was bigger than the one on the Mustang and so the view is a little less. You may need to adjust the default view a bit more forward (F10 key) and you should get a better view out the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its mutch better then it was in old il2, you can see oposite side of rudder, so you can seee all you need to check 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

Its mutch better then it was in old il2, you can see oposite side of rudder, so you can seee all you need to check 6.

Yeah, old Il-2 the visibility was terrible, the bubble canopy was useless with the big headrest in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2018 at 7:24 AM, No.41_Glen said:

Conclusion:  In January 1945, production 3rd batch with Sabre IIB Tempest were in the service, but the quantity is small. In February, Sabre IIB Tempests account for 50% victories. From September to December 1944, Sabre IIA engine Tempest were the absolute mainstream, however, their conversion to IIB status  is unknown. We don't know how much of them were upgraded to 11 lbs setup in late 1944.

 

So the Devs have decided on two models: +9 and +11lbs.

 

I have been trying to find out when the change occurred in 2nd TAF on the continent, but like a lot of WW2 subjects, the answer is blurry.

 

This post by Glen seems to match what I have gleaned from other sources, i.e. the +9 lbs version was the most common version until the end of 1944.

The +11 lbs version started appearing in substantial numbers in early 1945 and was the most prevalent version towards the end of the war.

 

Is that the consensus or is there other evidence floating around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 12/8/2019 at 7:49 AM, Sgt_Joch said:

 

So the Devs have decided on two models: +9 and +11lbs.

 

I have been trying to find out when the change occurred in 2nd TAF on the continent, but like a lot of WW2 subjects, the answer is blurry.

 

This post by Glen seems to match what I have gleaned from other sources, i.e. the +9 lbs version was the most common version until the end of 1944.

The +11 lbs version started appearing in substantial numbers in early 1945 and was the most prevalent version towards the end of the war.

 

Is that the consensus or is there other evidence floating around?

Usaully  it took several months for RAF to supply new type to battle field, IIB engines were available in late 1944, but not sure about the quantity, bTW IIA engine can also be modified. 

Edited by No.41_Glen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I've taken advantage of the free downloads offered by the British National Archives to have a look at the reports filed by the Tempest squadrons. Of very helpful note is a list of reports from 3 Squadron from the fall of 1944 showing the total amount of ammo loaded for each mission. Every entry I've seen shows a max of 600 rounds per plane - the game's current ammo loading. 

 

(If anyone's interested in checking for themselves, the document is AIR/27/34/24).

 

EDIT: also, the one available 1945 ammo report from 3 Squadron for January shows the same thing: 600 rounds per plane.

Edited by LukeFF
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any reports about tempests losing wings , or pilots needed to take care of pull on stick to not lose wings ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Any reports about tempests losing wings , or pilots needed to take care of pull on stick to not lose wings ?

 

No

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

56 Squadron, August 1944:

 

56SqnAugustAmmoExpenditure.thumb.JPG.7f2b752e071334ebb694bb5d570dc05e.JPG

 

 

September 1944:

 

56SqnSeptemberAmmoExpenditure.thumb.JPG.5195828a1d6a5082f578c94b60578224.JPGCapture.thumb.JPG.db55e965a774e10d779ce0ea68723083.JPG

 

October 1944:

 

Capture2.thumb.JPG.1f13a769b6624daea9fba7c41201c9ac.JPG

Edited by LukeFF
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

November ammo expenditure report:

 

Capture3.thumb.JPG.2e651e7a4ba97d3ff37cd5f7739df57b.JPG

Edited by LukeFF
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think it would be great to have a "Extra ammo" modification then 😀

 

Nice finding, Luke!

Edited by LF_Gallahad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

December 1944:

 

Capture4.thumb.JPG.6a6885a0b2134b262c2ba000022e3e17.JPG

 

January 1945:

 

January45.thumb.JPG.3e08fba2665ccd164ca70e20bcb918b5.JPG

Edited by LukeFF
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ack, false alarm, guys! I wasn't reading these charts correctly. Those columns are divided up into "Effective Sorties" and "Not Effective Sorties". When one adds up the numbers of aircraft in each of those columns, the number of rounds per aircraft is 600.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really interesting info Luke, thanks for that. Also notable is that long range tanks aren't listed in any of the 'LOADS CARRIED/EXPENDED' columns...does this mean that they weren't used, or were they overlooked for some reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, NZTyphoon said:

Really interesting info Luke, thanks for that. Also notable is that long range tanks aren't listed in any of the 'LOADS CARRIED/EXPENDED' columns...does this mean that they weren't used, or were they overlooked for some reason?

 

I think drop tanks are listed under the category of "Bombs, RPs, L R Tanks, etc (By Types)." For instance, for 56 Squadron's January 1945 report, the third row highlighted shows 8 total planes that flew an Armed Recce, has "16" under the category of "Loads Carried" and "12" under the category of "Loads Expended." That tells me all 8 planes that day carried 2 drop tanks, and all but 4 were jettisoned.

 

Furthermore, many of the entries elsewhere in the ORB list these missions as "Long Range Armed Recce." So, I take that to mean these were missions flown with drop tanks.

Edited by LukeFF
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

I think drop tanks are listed under the category of "Bombs, RPs, L R Tanks, etc (By Types)." For instance, for 56 Squadron's January 1945 report, the third row highlighted shows 8 total planes that flew an Armed Recce, has "16" under the category of "Loads Carried" and "12" under the category of "Loads Expended." That tells me all 8 planes that day carried 2 drop tanks, and all but 4 were jettisoned.

 

Furthermore, many of the entries elsewhere in the ORB list these missions as "Long Range Armed Recce." So, I take that to mean these were missions flown with drop tanks.

Doh! (facepalm here) You're right - I missed reading the 45 Gal LRT in the first columns of the LOADS CARRIED/LOADS EXPENDED...

January45.JPG.f93744b1655cca19790fdebbad6779c9.thumb.JPG.1c6675d54e174527cb5bf51f10785b7f.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...